There is a lot of angst amongst some professional photographers at the moment - will the profession survive the onslaught of the weekend wannabes, amateurs who don't give up their day job during the week who then undercut the hapless professionals on the weekend? The argument is that equipment is so good and so cheap that the market is dead.
But are professional photographers as vulnerable as some fear? Firstly, good equipment isn't cheap - a good lens costs in excess of $2000, my standard zoom costs $3000, and a good camera body is $3000+.
The computer at the studio also has to be fast so it can process images (think $3000+) and the software has to be at least Photoshop and Lightroom ($1200+).
To ensure your clients get stunning images with perfect colour, you have to edit your images on a high end computer monitor which is properly calibrated ($3000).
As for printing, a good A2 printer costs around $3000.
So when you add up all the $3000s, and allow for a backup camera and other lenses and flashes, you can easily spend $20,000.
But is the high outlay actually visible in the results? Buying a camera doesn't make you a photographer, knowing how to use the equipment is essential but if you are expert in using your gear, the results can be priceless.
As a society we are fully aware of how we present on camera and how we generally fall far short of desirable body and face types given how saturated we are with 'perfect' images by the media.
This means we fear the camera and brace us ourselves whenever we see one - the result tends to be stilted artificial imagery.
To return to true photography, which for me is about capturing tenderness, images should be candid.
I think this type of photography can only be achieved in circumstances where the subject is oblivious to the camera which means not using flash and using a telephoto lens.
But the 21st Birthday in which I photographed last weekend was held in a Community Hall where the lighting was less than ideal, in fact it was dingy.
To take images, I shot at 6400 asa (most amateur cameras' results look very grainy above 1600 asa or two stops slower), 1/180sec and at f2.
8 (most amateur camera's zooms would be f5.
6 at this zoom length or two stops slower).
In short, I was able to take photos in light conditions at least four times worse than what a typical camera could achieve.
The other way I prevent people from putting on their camera face is by taking along a portable light studio to weddings and parties.
Since very few people have been photographed in a studio, they don't know what they will look like so they don't tend to fear the results.
An added bonus of my studio lights is that they produce a beautiful light which makes people look great.
True, the images aren't candid but they are very high quality and completely beyond the realm of amateur photography.
In conclusion, there will always be a market for excellent professional photography and the encroachment of amateurs has only been at the expense of mediocre professional photographers.
I embrace the amateurs because they keep me on my toes and that can only be good for both my business and my clients.
But are professional photographers as vulnerable as some fear? Firstly, good equipment isn't cheap - a good lens costs in excess of $2000, my standard zoom costs $3000, and a good camera body is $3000+.
The computer at the studio also has to be fast so it can process images (think $3000+) and the software has to be at least Photoshop and Lightroom ($1200+).
To ensure your clients get stunning images with perfect colour, you have to edit your images on a high end computer monitor which is properly calibrated ($3000).
As for printing, a good A2 printer costs around $3000.
So when you add up all the $3000s, and allow for a backup camera and other lenses and flashes, you can easily spend $20,000.
But is the high outlay actually visible in the results? Buying a camera doesn't make you a photographer, knowing how to use the equipment is essential but if you are expert in using your gear, the results can be priceless.
As a society we are fully aware of how we present on camera and how we generally fall far short of desirable body and face types given how saturated we are with 'perfect' images by the media.
This means we fear the camera and brace us ourselves whenever we see one - the result tends to be stilted artificial imagery.
To return to true photography, which for me is about capturing tenderness, images should be candid.
I think this type of photography can only be achieved in circumstances where the subject is oblivious to the camera which means not using flash and using a telephoto lens.
But the 21st Birthday in which I photographed last weekend was held in a Community Hall where the lighting was less than ideal, in fact it was dingy.
To take images, I shot at 6400 asa (most amateur cameras' results look very grainy above 1600 asa or two stops slower), 1/180sec and at f2.
8 (most amateur camera's zooms would be f5.
6 at this zoom length or two stops slower).
In short, I was able to take photos in light conditions at least four times worse than what a typical camera could achieve.
The other way I prevent people from putting on their camera face is by taking along a portable light studio to weddings and parties.
Since very few people have been photographed in a studio, they don't know what they will look like so they don't tend to fear the results.
An added bonus of my studio lights is that they produce a beautiful light which makes people look great.
True, the images aren't candid but they are very high quality and completely beyond the realm of amateur photography.
In conclusion, there will always be a market for excellent professional photography and the encroachment of amateurs has only been at the expense of mediocre professional photographers.
I embrace the amateurs because they keep me on my toes and that can only be good for both my business and my clients.
SHARE
